Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 469 (MP)

Anmol Dwivedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2011-04-19

G.S.SOLANKI

body2011
JUDGMENT G.S. Solanki, J. 1. The Appellant has preferred these appeals against the impugned judgment and findings dated 16/10/2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Rewa in Special Case No. 01/2006 whereby Appellant has been convicted under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 11/2 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulations. 2. The aforesaid appeals are arises out of the same judgment and findings, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Prosecution case in short is that on 3/2/2005 N.P. Singh (PW7), Incharge of Police Station Dhabaura, District Rewa received secret information that at 10.25p.m. 5-6 miscreants having armed making conspiracy for dacoity. On the basis of secret information, N.P. Singh rushed to the spot alongwith police force, surrounded the miscreants. During this process, one of the co-accused Chunnu @ Dhanua Patel @ Pandey fled away but Appellant and their two other co-accused Ramkaran Yadav and Manoj Yadav were caught hold on the spot and 12 bore double barrel gun alongwith some live cartridges, 315 bore rifle alongwith three live cartridges, country made pistol, knife and the motorcycles have been seized from their possession. They have been arrested. 4. After usual investigation, they have been prosecuted before the Special Judge, (Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam), Rewa. 5. Learned Special Judge framed the charges against the Appellant under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11 & 13 of Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam and Appellant Anmol Dwivedi and Subron @ Sobran with co-accused Ramkaran charged with 25(1B)(a) and other co-accused Manoj Yadav charged with 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act. Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated. 6. On appraisal of evidence on record, Appellant and his co-accused Ramkaran have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein above. Hence these appeals. 7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the trial Court committed error in not appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective. He further submitted that Ramakant Tiwari (PW4) admitted in his cross-examination that firearms were not produced before the sanctioning authority. Despite aforesaid admission, trial Court committed illegality in holding that sanction was legal. He further submitted that conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court be set aside and Appellants be acquitted. 8. He further submitted that Ramakant Tiwari (PW4) admitted in his cross-examination that firearms were not produced before the sanctioning authority. Despite aforesaid admission, trial Court committed illegality in holding that sanction was legal. He further submitted that conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court be set aside and Appellants be acquitted. 8. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer formally objected the contention raised by the Appellants. 9. I have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record. 10. Witness Ramakant Tiwari (PW4) has been cited by prosecution to prove the sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act. Ramakant Tiwari (PW4) deposed that on 24.3.2005, District Magistrate, Shri Kidwai accorded the sanction under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against the Appellants Anmol Dwivedi and Subran @ Sobran which is exhibited Ex.P/12 and 13, respectively. In his cross-examination in para-5, he admitted that seized firearms were not sent by the Superintendent of Police Office alongwith the case diary. 11. On careful scanning of the evidence of Ramakant Tiwari (PW4), it reveals that Superintendent of Police, Rewa sent only case diary alongwith his report for grant of sanction against the Appellants. Same fact reveals from para-2 of Ex.P/12 and P/13 in which District Magistrate perused the case diary and seizure memo only. It means firearms of 12 bore double barrel gun and 315 bore riffle were not produced before the District Magistrate for his perusal. On the basis of aforesaid evidence on record, learned Counsel for the Appellants argued that if no weapon proved to have been sent with records and only clerk was examined to prove signature of signing officer, sanction could not be held to be proved. He relied on 1998 (1) JLJ 236, Raju Dubey v. State of M.P. and 2010 (I) MPWN 38 , Chirku @ Lakhanlal v. State of M.P. 12. The fact of this case is similar to the facts of aforesaid cases like Raju Dubey v. State of M.P. (supra) and Chirku @ Lakhanlal v. State of M.P. (supra) in which only arms clerk was examined to prove the sanction and he fairly admitted in his cross-examination that no arms were sent by police for grant of sanction. 13. The fact of this case is similar to the facts of aforesaid cases like Raju Dubey v. State of M.P. (supra) and Chirku @ Lakhanlal v. State of M.P. (supra) in which only arms clerk was examined to prove the sanction and he fairly admitted in his cross-examination that no arms were sent by police for grant of sanction. 13. In these circumstances, I am of the view that trial Court committed error in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective, therefore, conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 14. Thus, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court is set aside. The Appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act. 15. The Appellants are on bail. Their bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled. 16. If fine amount deposited by the Appellants, they are entitled to get back from the trial Court. 17. A copy of this judgment be placed in Criminal Appeal No. 2152/2006.